Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwellers of the Forbidden City

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a case where an AFD has been set up to illustrate a WP:POINT. It was a bit pointless ironically, since whatever the outcome, deletion precedent is that each article is (and would be) assessed on its own merit and not by reference to any other article. So the first thing to say is, whatever the outcome, it is not a precedent for any other deletion. There are also comments suggesting the AFD was filed defensively against an expected deletion by users "going after fancruft". Whether or not such users exist, and whether or not the deletion was filed for that reason (it clearly was), both are irrelevant. This AFD is here now, and is decided on evidence related to policy based reasoning, without either of these stances being relevant.

Policy relevant points raised -
  1. third party references exist, including one editorial on "greatest adventures of all time" that rates it as 13th in a list of at least 30;
  2. concerns that the sources are "trivial low level coverage" and "not reliable secondary sources" by any imagination" (with a rebuttal that even if lowly rated, the coverage exists and is verifiable);
  3. similar concerns that the content is indifferent or mere product review/gamesite review (but rebuttal that reviews are still valid secondary sources); and
  4. a proposal to merge or consolidate as notability not established;
Non policy based points raised -
  1. "sources exist so it's notable" (the words presumed to be in WP:N have significance);
  2. it's important, useful or interesting (see WP:IMPORTANT, WP:USEFUL and WP:INTERESTING);
  3. Google hits (quality matters more than quantity, sometimes helpful, in this case unhelpful: hits seem to be not a tiny or a huge number, and mostly D&D booksellers and D&D fan pages/blogs/infosites/etc);
  4. WP:BK - not relevant, a module is more than just a "book", its an entire gaming system.

A person submitting their own article to AFD to make a point, needs to be very sure the subject does in fact have the standing claimed, and perhaps this one does. The problem is, the subject's coverage as evidenced is within its own genre, and not outside in any way. It's also (as described below) less than ideal in other ways too.

There are 10 cites in the article, but two just cite its first use, three evidence the usual initial reviews (that all games have, in which it got non-remarkable ratings), four relate to game creatures (etc) used in other games. Of all 10 cites in the article and AFD, just one relates in any way to a claim of notability, and that is from within the genre. In other words, not one cite is produced to show notability beyond its own limited fan circle, and only one to show standing within it.

It's a well known feature of sales and marketing and product reviews/"best of", that many products can claim one award or special mention somewhere or other. Just one product award in one rating system or review, by one magazine, is rarely good evidence by itself, unless the awarding body has some kind of reputation (see below). If a subject is genuinely notable, one would expect repeated evidence of significance, for example independent reviews giving exclusive focus, credible non-fan-circle mentions, etc. Looking at the cites in the AFD and in the article, the only evidence of notability presented at this AFD are 1/ the usual routine mentions, reviews and so on from fan magazines (including being reviewed and rated roughly "avg/avg+" on release) which do not actually evidence notability, and 2/ the single list entry in the "Dungeon" magazine review of D&D games, published as a feature by a fan magazine. That is the sum total of all evidence presented. There are no cites provided, attesting to notability from outside the narrow circle of fan publications; nothing to attest it was a notable game, or product, or module, of any kind, from outside that narrow circle of interest.

Notability criteria include significant mention in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Such sources leads to a presumption that it is notable. Despite a 7 day discussion (more than the normal 5) with many views, we still have no "multiple sources" attesting to "significant mention". We have just one sole mention within its own narrow circle, and none from outside it.

The last question is to look at that "Dungeon" magazine review, and see if that can be enough, alone. It seems from the list of judges that these were chosen for genuine D&D credibility. The panel included reputable game authors, influential reviewers and designers, and presidents and chief editors of D&D publishing companies, in the genre - it is not a trivial collection of opinion-makers, nor is it visibly likely to be partisan or "pushing certain products". So this is good evidence that the game is indeed fairly rated as #13 in its genre. The problem is, we don't know how many games of genuine credibility were rated (or exist) - if there were 30 listed but in fact only 30 credible games that could be considered seriously, then #13 would in fact not prove much. If it was in competition with (say) 200 other credible games, then #13 might be a genuine achievement. And additionally we still lack significant multiple, or non-fan, mentions either way.

So this is the problem. We have no sources evidenced at this AFD to show notability from outside the genre and fan-circles. We have almost no sources showing notability within it. We don't have multiple sources. We have one review but whilst a good one, it's still only one mention and slight, from within its own circle, and there are problems determining what weight to give a rating of #13. These can perhaps all be remedied, but at this point no evidence exists to allow AFD contributors to do so. If new evidence can be found, then there may then be a good case to keep. But at this time it seems clear the evidence provided at this time does not rebut the concerns of those who state notability is an issue.

DRV overturned the original result outright to no consensus. Xoloz (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dwellers of the Forbidden City

edit
Dwellers of the Forbidden City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Dungeons and Dragons module being claimed as non-notable. I'm bringing this here to establish a precedent that at least some of these modules are notable. Pak21 (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Commment I can only comment on what is quoted in the article - which is trivial low-qulatity coverage and cannot be intepreted as a reliable secondary source by a long stretch of the imagination, even one as overactive as an RPG enthusiast's. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Game guide? Where's the instructions? Who is being told how to do what exactly in this article? There's no plot summary, just a quotation of the back cover text (which, perhaps, doesn't belong in the article). I look at WP:BK and find the word "reviews" in criteria 1 for notability. Neither White Dwarf nor Different Worlds were associated with TSR. I added a reference from Wizards of the Coast. Despite User:Pak21's remark, while Wizards of the Coast are the current publishers of D&D, they certainly were not at the time that this game module was published, and were not the publishers of this module in 1981 (I don't think WotC was even a glimmer in the eye of anyone in 1981). That WotC reference's mention of this game module is admittedly brief, but it does back up the claim that this module was first used in a tournament at Origins (which to some, at least, is also a claim to notability). How are any of these three references not secondary sources because of the independence of them from the publishers (TSR)? These sources aren't merely blogs or "fansites" as you mention. Could you clarify for me how this still fails WP:BK, please? Furthermore, the comment that "only an RPG fanatic..." might be bordering on breaching WP:CIVILITY by attempting to disparage others commenting in this AFD. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment can you illustrate reliable sources which should cover RPG books outside the field of RPG? That way other editors that is interested in they field can reference their work properly with those you point to. Calling people RPG fanatics does isn't really helping much. For example, I source the bio articles that I created with journals and the video game stubs I fixed with Gamespot and Ign staff reviews and news but not vice versa. Just asking. Since you know what is not a reliable source. Maybe you know what is.--Lenticel (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Product reviews are legitimate reliable secondary sources. I agree that Gavin's comments regarding "RPG fanatics" is a breach of WP:CIVILITY. I'm sure that it's frustrating for Gavin that the consensus doesn't usually agree with his countless tags and AfD's, but that's no reason for namecalling. Rray (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't find Gavin's comment uncivil. He may have chosen slightly better language, but I find this tendency to whine about incivility every time someone uses a colorful turn of phrase, depressing. We must aspire to more than an online community of sloughing deltas, RPG fanatics or no. Eusebeus (talk) 14:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Gavin does have a history of condescending incivility to those who think differently than he does, so it's nothing new. I try to ignore it and move on. BOZ (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Mr Collins has either no idea what D&D is, or he's doing it in order to sound condescending. He's about as impartial as Tomas de Torquemada when it comes to RPG articles (which he has tagged in droves). Anyhow, I'm going to !vote
    • Comment This is not a game guide. It's not even sort of a game guide. Please explain. Hobit (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on this one, on grounds that notability cannot be established. In my opinion, the same is true for nearly all D&D supplements and nearly all in-universe D&D articles. Per Wikipedia guidelines as written the categories in question need to be decimated forthwith. --Agamemnon2 (talk) 06:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not in favour of a scorched earth policy involving decimation, but I agree that merger or consolidation of these modules, stock locations, deities, characters (few if any of which have any notability) into a useful list - this would be a big improvement to to RPG articles. Incidently, these modules, adventures and supplements (aka game instructions) do not require experts to divine whether they are notable or not; what they do need are reliable secondary sources to provide evidience that they are significant. This artlicle reads like a review for a favorite book. If article like this keep getting written, Wikipedia will be watered down to a blog of games played by RPG enthusiasts. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe it is because there are a group of editors who are going after "Fancruft". The raw number of "not notable" tags that a few editors have placed on nearly all D&D pages is amazing. Hobit (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dwellers_of_the_Forbidden_City&oldid=1166147010"